User talk:Ericsherby

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Ericsherby, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I noticed that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or another editor to proofread it. See our help page on userspace drafts for more details. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

One rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which imply that the account belongs to a company or corporation. If you have a username like this, you should request a change of username or create a new account. (A name that identifies the user as an individual within a given organization may be OK.)

Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! /wia🎄/tlk 18:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of International Litigation Network[edit]

A tag has been placed on International Litigation Network, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article seems to be blatant advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as the Wikipedia:Business' FAQ for more information.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. NJGW (talk) 22:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of International Litigation Network[edit]

A tag has been placed on International Litigation Network, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. UKWikiGuy (talk) 11:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of International Litigation Network[edit]

A tag has been placed on International Litigation Network requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. andy (talk) 12:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

June 2008[edit]

Please stop. If you continue to introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, such as International Litigation Network, you will be blocked from editing. andy (talk) 12:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way of getting a "prior ruling" on the text of an article? Ericsherby (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC) E Sherby[reply]

Would an entry comparable to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lex_Mundi be acceptable? Thanks, Ericsherby (talk) 12:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)E Sherby[reply]

No, I just requested that one for deletion too. If there are some reliable sources that have written news or journal articles about your firm, those can be used to write an article. If no such sources exist, then it is assumed your firm is not important enough to have it's own Wikipedia article. Not trying to be harsh, but that's the measure used around here for notability. NJGW (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rule of thumb (from WP:N) - "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". If the subject is a commercial organisation then editors tend to be quite critical about what counts as significant andy (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we appreciate hearing that other legal networks are being treated in a like manner. We expect to cite to one ABA publication and that, as a result, our article will be short. Ericsherby (talk) 22:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC) E Sherby[reply]

Speedy deletion of International litigation network[edit]

A tag has been placed on International litigation network requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Seba5618 (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of International Litigation Network[edit]

A tag has been placed on International Litigation Network, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Spam. This article (with various capitalisations) has already been speedied five times. The reference cited is merely an attempt to get round WP:SPAM by making it sound as if this is an article about a point of law rather than an advert. See the editor's talk page. IMHO it's time for a short block

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. andy (talk) 06:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spam links[edit]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Section 1782 Discovery. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. andy (talk) 08:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise International litigation, Enforcement of foreign judgments, etc. andy (talk) 08:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other articles[edit]

As a wikipedia editor you are free to nominate any article for cleanup or deletion or to make any reasonable edits that improve it or bring it into compliance with wikipedia's policies. You can do this with articles about "rival" law firms. Each article is taken on its own merits - the existence of an article about one law firm does not imply that an article about another firm should be accepted. It may well be that no-one has yet got round to sorting out the first article. andy (talk) 09:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of Gregory P. Joseph[edit]

I have nominated Gregory P. Joseph, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gregory P. Joseph. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Stifle (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (December 28)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted because it included copyrighted information, which is not permitted on Wikipedia.
This submission appears to be taken from http://www.sherby.co.il/pdf/2013-Survey-Methodology-(E)-and-Q&A.pdf. Wikipedia cannot accept material copied from elsewhere, unless it explicitly exists under a compatible licence and is written in an acceptable tone—this includes material that you own the copyright to. You should attribute the content of a draft to outside sources, using citations, but copying and pasting or closely paraphrasing sources is not acceptable. The entire draft should be written using your own words and structure.
You are welcome to write an article on the subject, but please do not use copyrighted work. /wia🎄/tlk 18:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Teahouse logo
Hello! Ericsherby, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! /wia🎄/tlk 18:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and copyright[edit]

Control copyright icon Hello Ericsherby, and welcome to Wikipedia. Your addition to User:Ericsherby/sandbox has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

  • You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and a cited source. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
  • Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
  • Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
  • If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
  • In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
  • Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. /wia🎄/tlk 18:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem: User:Ericsherby/sandbox[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as User:Ericsherby/sandbox, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to contain material copied from http://www.sherby.co.il/pdf/2013-Survey-Methodology-(E)-and-Q&A.pdf, and therefore to constitute a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policies. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators are liable to be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at User talk:Ericsherby/sandbox saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Hi Eric, this is the form message we leave on the talk pages of contributors once a page is sent to be assessed by the copyright clerks at copyright investigations. Thanks, /wia🎄/tlk 21:41, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (December 28)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:
Possible copyright violation. Resubmit if copyright violation issue is corrected.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Robert McClenon (talk) 22:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Ericsherby/sandbox[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User:Ericsherby/sandbox, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which articles can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Ericsherby. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Ericsherby. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest[edit]

Information icon Hello, Ericsherby. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Singapore Mediation Convention, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

  • avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
  • propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
  • disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
  • avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
  • do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. – robertsky (talk) 15:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Robert:

At your suggestion, I have reviewed Wikipedia's article "Conflict of Interest" and the FAQs regarding Organizations. There is no reason to conclude that I in any way have a COI with respect to my contribution to the article "Singapore Mediation Convention." Nor does my contribution in any way conflict with Wikipedia's policies regarding organizations (or any other policy). Below I address the COI issue in detail, then I explain the citations in context, and then I compare to other Wikipedia articles.

No Financial (or related) Interest, So No Conflict:

First, I did not "edit" an existing text but added an entirely new section (the "New Section") to the article on the Singapore Mediation Convention. The New Section referred to criticism that has been expressed by two authors -- (a) F. Peter Phillips and (b) myself.

To the best of my knowledge, I have never met or spoken with Mr. Phillips.

I have absolutely no personal, business, or financial relationship with Mr. Phillips whatsoever.

The New Section also refers to an article of mine (21 pages, 49 footnotes) that was recently published in a peer-reviewed publication of the American Bar Association. Other than that, (a) I have no interest in the subject matter, and (b) my law firm has no interest in the subject matter. Without limiting the foregoing, (a) if the Singapore Convention were to be ratified tomorrow, it would have no effect on my personal or financial interests or those of my law firm, and (b) if (at the other extreme) the convention were to be abrogated tomorrow, it would have no effect on my personal or financial interests or those of my law firm.

I am not a mediator.

The New Section is not about me, my family, friends, clients, employer/ee, or any other "relationship" of mine. The references to me merely reflect that I am the one who authored the peer-reviewed article.

In summary, the entire "COI checklist" is negative. I have no COI.

Content – Criticism in Context:

The New Section meets all of Wikipedia's criteria as to verifiability –

a) The New Section expresses criticism – by citing to published sources (one of which is a peer-reviewed article) – of the treaty that is the subject of the article entitled "Singapore Mediation Convention";

b) The New Section accurately summarizes that peer-reviewed article.

The New Section also complies with the Wikipedia rules regarding neutral point of view. In this context, please note that the New Section uses the phrase "Sherby argues" four times. The verb "argues" is a neutral term.

Any reader is obviously free to conclude that a particular argument is not persuasive. If so, such a reader would be free to edit by citing to any published source that refutes such argument. However, a Wikipedia article that merely states that the author of an article (published elsewhere) has made one or more arguments in no way means that such author has any type of COI.

The New Section states that my (published) article is "more comprehensive" than that of Phillips. Most people would agree that a 21-page article is more comprehensive than a three-page article. Obviously if there were to be a Wikipedia editor who believes that the Phillips article is (for example) more persuasive than my article (regardless of length), then s/he would be free to add that and explain why. But in light of the very different lengths of the two published articles, it is reasonable to presume that the 21-page article is more comprehensive.

Yet even if one does not want to draw any conclusions based upon the respective lengths, the mere use of the phrase "more comprehensive" is not in any way a reason to conclude that I have any type of a "conflict of interest." As explained above, I do not.

The Singapore Convention is a relatively new convention. I know of no other published articles that criticize it. As more is published on the topic, perhaps (a) the references in the New Section to my published article will eventually become obsolete, or (b) a more comprehensive article will be published (elsewhere), necessitating some other change(s) in the New Section. But such future possibilities do not mean that there is any current reason for the New Section (as is) to be excluded.

If Wikipedia deletes the New Section in its entirety, it will create the false impression that the convention has come under no criticism. That would be a severe disservice to any reader of the article on the Singapore Mediation Convention.

References to Non-Wikipedia Criticism, From Published Works, Is Entirely Consistent With Wikipedia Policy and Practice: There are countless other Wikipedia articles that include expressions of criticism of the subject of that article. Some examples:

a) "Scholar Rainer Enrique Hamel has criticized the Arts & Humanities Citation Index for its poor reflection of scientific production in languages other than English," in Arts and Humanities Citation Index;

b) "Walter Savitch has criticized the terminology "context-sensitive" as misleading and proposed "non-erasing" as better explaining the distinction between a CSG and an unrestricted grammar," in Context-sensitive Grammar;

c) "The European Union's East StratCom Task Force has criticized NewsPunch for spreading Russian propaganda," in NewsPunch;

d) "Norwegian lawyer Fredrik S. Heffermehl has criticized the management of the Peace Prize," in Nobel Peace Prize; and

e) "The Simon Wiesenthal Center has criticized The New York Times for printing cartoons regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that were claimed to be anti-Semitic," in the New York Times.

From these sources, it is clear that it is acceptable to Wikipedia for an article to include expressions of criticism of the subject of that article – which is another way of saying that the New Section is consistent with Wikipedia policies and practices.

Based on the above facts, I presume that it is clear that I have no conflict of interest whatsoever and that nothing in the New Section contravenes any Wikipedia policy or guidelines.

If you have any questions or wish to receive any further clarifications as to the subject matter, please let me know. THANKS --eric

@Ericsherby: My contention is that it is precisely you are citing your own article, per WP:SELFCITE. Like you have mentioned, the convention is new, and thus criticism may be limited. However citing two, one other and your self with majority of the section from your own article seems excessive and undue, that when I first reverted, and upon re-reading now as well. This is also partly stemmed from the fact that I am unable to find the reference you have cited for your article. My Google-fu may be failing me. Can you point me in the right direction to have a read of the article you wrote? I would suggest that you take the route of proposing the edits in the Talk page of the article and have the community review. – robertsky (talk) 15:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK for me to send to your e-mail address??

yea. sure, if there's no online location of that article. – robertsky (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert: Upon further consideration, it occurred to me that there is a rather simple solution that does not water-down the content. I set it forth below:

"

Criticism of the Convention[edit]

One of the first published criticisms of the Singapore Convention was expressed, in a blog post, by F. Peter Phillips (New Jersey), who criticized the convention for opening the door to motion practice concerning alleged mediator misconduct. Phillips questions whether mediators should be required to testify in enforcement proceedings, and he also questions the applicable standard for determining whether any "mediator misconduct" took place.[1]

A more comprehensive critique of the Convention was voiced by Eric Sherby (Israel). Writing in the American Bar Association's International Dispute Resolution News, Sherby argues as follows:

a) there is little empirical evidence of a need for a multi-lateral treaty governing the enforceability of settlement agreements arrived at through mediation. [2]

b) Article 5, section 1 of the Singapore Convention will serve to undermine the enforcement of such agreements. Article 5, Section 1 authorizes a court in the state in which enforcement is sought to consider the mediator's "breach" of applicable standards as a possible defense to enforcement. The "mediator misconduct" defense invites recalcitrant disputants to raise the issue of "mediator breach" in an inconvenient forum[3], and the convention should have required the court in the state of enforcement to consider such defense only if the court also considers the issue of good faith reliance by the party that seeks enforcement. [4]

c) the convention's exclusion provision regarding "employment law" is drafted in a manner likely to encompass disputes other than those between an employer and an employee and that such flaw could have been avoided if the Singapore Convention had used language similar to that used in the Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements.[5]

" Do you agree? Thanks, ESS

  1. ^ http://www.businessconflictmanagement.com/blog/2018/10/concerns-on-the-new-singapore-convention/ .
  2. ^ The Singapore Convention: The Emperor's New Clothes of International Dispute Resolution, (ABA) Fall 2020, page 5.
  3. ^ Ibid pages 9-13
  4. ^ Ibid, pages 7-9.
  5. ^ Ibid, Pages 13-15.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ericsherby&oldid=1074478572"